The RIAA are idiots, apparently

Remove all ads!

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051201/0112259_F.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031203/1326247_F.shtml

Is any comment needed?

Oh, okay, I will give mine. I don't believe everyone in RIAA is such an idiot. Perhaps they were idiots in suing someone who didn't even own a computer. But the "64% Americans understand downloading is illegal" thing looks like psychological, social enginery in the best tradition of Goebbels and Baghdad Bob. Not even blatant lying and disinformation is wrong when the holy profit is in danger. Thou shalt not stand in the way of profit.

Now they are going to show us they can sue us even if we don't own a computer. We probably shouldn't hum tunes anymore now...

 

They filed a lawsuit against a woman who does not even own a computer? Either they are really stupid, or just greedy and desperate.

 

I took a look into the RIAA earlier this year and it seems they are there only to stir up turmoil and make money while doing it... This is one way of getting quick cash, as far as I am concerned they are not fighting for a cause they are just dickheads trying to make money off of lies to record labels and musicians who are making music only for the money on those record labels to go advocate their anti-P2P policies(AHEM, Metallica, shame on you). Of course this isnt hard since there is obviously no money in it. But there are those who dont care at all... Take a Grateful Dead for example, you will never hear a word outta Phil Lesh or the Garcia family about Jerry's bootlegs getting swiped off the net. Thats why they allowed those damn bootlegs to be made. Either that or they were just too high to care...

[ December 03, 2005, 19:34: Message edited by: The Gatekeeper ]

 

Most big companies are just there for money, and they don't care about the people that they affect with their greed. If it were up to me, I would shut down those hugeass corporations, and make smaller, people-based companies that actually cared.

 

Yes, I've heard many educated people say that all the time, but theres no money in that... Our society exists on a slightly more versitile cycle than other countries due to how our government is run and that would completly blow it out of the water... The end of free enterprise sounds a lot like, the end of america...

 

The RIAA?!? I HATE THOSE BASTARDS!!! They're the ones who closed the wonderful AudioGalaxy!!!

To tell the truth, what they done doesen't surprise me the slightest. They're a ****ing bunch of *******s, if I dare to say so. Blech. Sooner or later they'll sue you for having music on your hard drive, even if it's ripped from your own personal CD stash...

 

Oh yes, because any hacker could break in and steal the music and even your house visitors. You know, you shouldn't even have the CD stash in the open because someone who didn't pay for the CDs could listen to one when he's in your house. And even if you paid for the exact same CD that's in your house, you still shouldn't listen to the song elsewhere. Buy another CD, you know. And one for your bedroom and one for the car and one for work.

 

At which point they'll receive a judicial smackdown, due to the legal concept of fair use.

 

HAHAHA! Chev, I didn't knew you could be *THAT* sarcastic! You've been cranked up a few levels in my esteem! HAHAHA!

And what about the possibility of a visitor carrying a recording device to steal the music?!?

 

Chev may have been sarcastic as far as mucic is concerned, but it's NOT a joke when it comes to computer software. It's the actual truth. You must buy a separate CD for every computer you own. Look at what MicroSoft did with Windows XP to ensure that's the case.

 

Nay, they allow you three computers per disc, I believe. At least on the Student and Teacher edition.

 

OK...I love chev...he's my brother in arms, but I have to disagree with him here. Piracy has to be stopped, and fast, if you ever want to enjoy BG3 or NWN3 on your PC. I costs a jillion bucks for a developer to make the next uber-wonderful PC game (whoops, did we just leave the door open for consoles?) and the fans of that game have to be willing to pay for it.

I know that I'm not alone when I say that I've had pirated versions of Call of Duty2 and Battlefield2 offered to me. I know someone who runs a server with CoD and BF2 copies running on it.

The only responsible choice is to say, "no thanks", whether it be the hot cd from band "X" or the kicka$$ new expansion from the world at war.

Look, it's like this. You can go to the bar of your choice, and assuming you're of legal age to begin with, they can offer you a world of drinks with impunity. The only time it becomes an issue is if you're apparently drunk.

Likewise, the download world is wide open. BUT if you download and store an item you have no otherwise right to...let the law have you (and, as it appears, they will).

Every individual is responsible for what they download and store on their hard drive. There are no excuses or alibis. A song, game or even a friggin cartoon is the property of the creator. Pay up, or there will be no creation in the next generation (as is evidenced by the current move of hip-hop music).

btw...if you wanna argue with me, you'll have to do it in court.

 

Hacken Slash: I have trouble being in complete agreement with you, sadly. It would be excellent for those who make the stuff to get the money and thus be able to make more stuff - but it seems to me that the money is mostly getting raked in by publishers/record labels and generally we - the customers - lose.

I don't pirate (well, only individual songs at most), but I can totally understand looking at a $100 (AU) pricetag on a game and going '**** that, might as well download it', especially when you know that most of it is just being leeched off by the middlemen and high-ups in the company.

Also: 'Anyone who minds about piracy is full of ****. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!' - Warren Spector.
If you're pirating something that's not worth spending money that you otherwise wouldn't buy - I have no problem

 

So because they're not getting everything, they don't get anything? Would you stop buying milk at the grocery store because the farmers who actually produce it get next to nothing for it? No, they need our support as much as we can give, and at the same time they need us to push legislation for them to get more money. Same applies to the artists. Cutting them off completely because the record companies are greedy pr*cks isn't fair.

Here's a situation the people on this board might understand:
Dynaheir is a magical artist, evoking wondrous figurines that are beautiful to behold. But the gnoll record company is bleeding her dry (literally). Would you join with the litigator Minsc to defeat the evil gnolls and free Dynaheir from her slavery, or would you just walk by and get a black market stolen figurine from a shady halfling by the side of the road? I'd say Minsc has every right to beat you down if you refuse.

But if all you do is litigate, then Dynaheir will starve and die as the long judicial process continues. So the lesser evil of giving to the gnolls must be made for her to survive until your efforts are complete and she is free.

Yes, there are a number of problems with the scenario, but it comes close enough to the truth. Starving the artists because the record companies are evil is just stupid and misplaced. At the very least, be like Minsc, who has no money left to support Dynaheir, but helps as much as he can by pushing the legislation, fighting to free his favorite artist. Sign a petition, write a letter to a government official, join an anti-RIAA group (peaceful, of course); make a difference. Just griping about it and doing nothing to change it is .

 

Anti-RIAA Group?

!!!!ANARCHY!!!! Sweet, sweet ANARCHY!



No, seriously, to follow-up on what the Big Cat said, I prefer to buy my stuff directly from the source (I.E Buying a band's CD, shirts, DVD or other gear at a show). I prefer to encourage the makers rather than fattening up corporations.

 

Yeah; please give me an example of an artist which is starving because of piracy . I don't know if you noticed, but the most pirated works belongs to the most popular (and successful) artists. Actually, I would go as far as saying that if piracy of your work is a concern, you have made it as an artist

So, IMHO, arguments that piracy hurts artists and no new music/movies/games will be created are BS. It hurts somewhat the pockets of record companies, but not as much as they'd have you believe (come on, would you really have spent $20 on that movie if you'd not have been able to download it?).

[ December 29, 2005, 22:02: Message edited by: khaavern ]

 

One result of piracy is bands not getting signed unless they fit the 100% sure hit formula. The record companies take less and less chances. Of course piracy is only one factor in this, record company greed is another, but piracy sure isn't helping.

And this was news to whom? It's mathematics and common sense. But it doesn't mean the less succesful artists *don't* get pirated. They're just hurt more by it.

This noble Robin Hood idea of downloading is crap. It's a way people use to justify the fact they don't want to spend money on something they can get for free. Why do people download illegally? Because they can.

 

I think is a real grey area. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. I don't download music for free (aka stealing), but that is more because I don't really know how and I don't want any spyware. I'd rather go and buy a CD. But I can see the argument that you'd only pirate something you didn't really want enough to pay for in the first place - therefore the record company probably doesn't lose that many sales.

But I think it's silly to abuse the so-called 'middle-men' because they are still normal people doing a normal job. They're the people driving the trucks carrying the CDs to the shop, they're the teenagers working in the record shop, it's the guy who typeset the CD cover etc etc. And there is some grandmother somewhere who owns shares in the record company. Sure there are a few overpaid big wigs in there somewhere but don't use them to personify everyone else in between.

 

Well, HB, what you say would make sense if these middlemen would take somethink like 30% of the total revenue coming from a CD. But, if I am not mistaken, the fraction they take is more like 95%.

Moreover, why should we in fact pay the middlemen these days? the distribution of information is incredibly easy now (cheap, too). Artists could simply distribute the music on their website. Record stores are somewhat superfluous now (some people might prefer buying stuff from a record store, as opposed to the internet, but they'd probably be few enough that they'd support only a small number of such stores). So, they are not so useful as in the past, so they will disappear. Kind of tough, but this is how things work.

Of course, the record companies do some promotional stuff, which one could argue is useful (for the artist). Is this worth 95% of the price, though?

 

Ha! I understand that piracy hurts smaller, less known artists, and that's why I prefer to get my stuff directly from them. Call me an Indie, but I am a fervent mainstream hater. Hmm... that gives me a sudden urge to listen to Dying Fetus' "Pissing In The Mainstream"



But as for M$... they're so rich that getting ****ed of 150 bucks is nothing. I own W2k, and no, I haven't paid for it. I don't intend to, either. And if that ends up getting my ass in trouble, then screw M$, I'm switching to Linux, or Unix, well, anything non-M$, basically.

end of